The Church is at your side as you seek a more dignified life for yourselves and your families.

For a second I was interpreting "dignified" in the true sense of "converting to the True Faith," not "dignified" in the Liberation Theology-of-the-poor sense… But it's clearly the latter sense due to his alignment with the leftie agenda.

2. The Motu proprio makes the criminal laws adopted by the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State applicable also within the Holy See.

3. The criminal laws adopted today are a continuation of the efforts to update Vatican City State’s legal system, building upon the measures adopted since 2010 during the pontificate of Benedict XVI.

4. These laws, however, have a broader scope, since they incorporate into the Vatican legal system the provisions of numerous international conventions including: the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, on the conduct of war and war crimes; the 1965 Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; the 1984 Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the 1989 Convention on the rights of the child and its optional protocols of 2000.

Presentation of the motu proprio by the Secretary for Relations with States Abp. Dominique Mamberti wrote:

The new laws also introduce other forms of crime indicated in various international conventions already ratified by the Holy See in international contexts and which will now be implemented in domestic law. Among these conventions, the following are worthy of mention: the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the 1989 International Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 2000 Optional Protocols, the 1949 Geneva Conventions on War Crimes, etc. A separate section is dedicated to crimes against humanity, including genocide and other crimes defined by international common law, along the lines of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. From a substantial point of view, finally, further items of note are the revision of crimes against the public administration, in line with the provisions included in the 2003 United Nations Convention Against Corruption, as well as the abolition of the life sentence, to be substituted by a maximum custodial sentence of 30 to 35 years.

Based on the Google translation of this article, I don't see how this would be different from the Assisi meetings. Of course, what it is would depend upon exactly what it was actually constituted to do which this article is unclear about. Should it be more than Assisi 4 and truly be a pan-religious Vatican III, then Catholics could no longer follow the Conciliar church in good faith. The bishops, priests, and laity who publicly remain in communion with this Roman church would be clearly lost to the true faith. It would be even more powerful than the ordination of women (though I truly believe that abomination will be realized during Bergoglio's watch and is just a few months away).

Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:52 am

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Bergoglio information

TKGS wrote:

Based on the Google translation of this article, I don't see how this would be different from the Assisi meetings. Of course, what it is would depend upon exactly what it was actually constituted to do which this article is unclear about.

Indeed, it is not very clear, but it seems to be a step further of Asissi (maybe some common declaration, etc. I don´t know, just speculating).

In any case I think everybody accepts Assisi by now, so I don´t see why they shouldn´t go further and be logic and unite definitively all those false religions.

Indeed, it is not very clear, but it seems to be a step further of Asissi (maybe some common declaration, etc. I don´t know, just speculating).

In any case I think everybody accepts Assisi by now, so I don´t see why they shouldn´t go further and be logic and unite definitively all those false religions.

I agree with you here, as far as the Conciliar church is concerned. It makes sense that they would become even more bold in declaring their absolute separation from the Catholic Church.

Catholics, on the other hand, would no longer be able to give the benefit of doubt to anyone who continues to adhere to that false religion. Individuals who come to traditional chapels who had formerly been a part of this abomination could no longer be accepted as they are now. They would need to go through a formal abjuration of error, would they not?

Individuals who come to traditional chapels who had formerly been a part of this abomination could no longer be accepted as they are now. They would need to go through a formal abjuration of error, would they not?

The only trouble with this idea is that a formal abjuration has no validity unless it is done before a valid bishop.

Hello, John. I trust your face is now in better condition that it was some time ago.

Concerning Bergo: my sweet wife put down on the table before me this morning at breakfast, print-outs of three different articles from the web, all of which detailed Bergo's recent comments while he was on his way back from Brazil.

I will not detail the subject matter since, as John points out repeatedly, this is a family forum. However, I am sure anyone who wishes to do so can find the necessary information "out there".

I didn't make it through the third article before my gorge had risen to the extent that I came within an ace of tearing all three to shreds and making the air blue with appropriate and perfectly accurate comments concerning that completely evil snake, Bergo.

Shortly thereafter, I called my NO sister in our home town, Missoula, Montana, which is about 300 miles east of us, and who is younger than I (most people these days are, in fact), and asked her, as kindly as I could, whether or not she believed that Bergo was really and truly the pope. Her reply was, "We have had bad popes before.", which of course is not a reply to my question, but certainly implies that she believes him to be the pope.

I then pressed her a bit, asking whether or not she knew what an anti-pope was. She assured me that she had read my own missives on this subject, and had read even further on the subject, and didn't really know what to believe.

I simply cannot believe how incredibly stupid most people appear to be these days. I cannot understand what God is doing to us either, nor why.

The angle of descent into absolute barbarism and paganism by the entire society of the world has reached the vertical. I shudder to think what our position is going to be in this society when it descends even a little further. We might as well be in hell.

I, myself, am offering a 54 day Rosary Novena that the false church leaves Rome as soon as possible. Perhaps if that occurs, it will wake at least a few of the brain-dead Novus Ordo-ites up a little.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:11 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bergoglio information

Dear Ken,

The answer is that these things, these evils, are being permitted in order that a greater good may come from them.

It's easy to imagine goods which may come from this crisis, even though we cannot know for sure. One of these is that the human race will know its insufficiency, having been left to its own devices for a period; likewise the office of the papacy will be glorified, all men seeing how absolutely necessary it is to the unity and safety of the Church, and the good of mankind.

If man's pride is crushed, and he recognises the greatness of the instituions granted to man by God in His infinite mercy, then this will result in a period of spiritual peace and progress of unparalleled vigour.

In the mean time, Mr. Bergoglio has moved to decapitate some Franciscan congregation and clamp down on its members offering the traditional Mass. Reactions are interesting, but again and again we see the mark of Satan - lying - in these things. Here's an example from Rorate Caeli(I don't know who the author is, or whether he knows better, but his comments are still lies).

Quote:

Fr. Angel Sotelo said...

If Pope Francis wanted to wreck SP, he would have simply abrogated it. Instead, the Holy Father wrote a very narrow instruction to one religious community which states that priests who wish to offer EF Mass must ask their superiors first. He did not suppress, abolish, forbid, or even badmouth the EF Mass for the friars. He simply asked that friars work under their superiors in these questions.

The dire, apocalyptic warnings and groans of despair must have the devil laughing and dancing at the same time. When the FSSP faced a crisis over a decade ago, we were told they were about to be suppressed. When the Transalpine Redemptorists faced a similar crisis, we were told they were going under any day now. When will people have even a little bit of faith that Jesus and Mary are taking care of us in all things?

Internal fights among friars over the liturgy are symptoms of far worse problems. The Holy Father's intervention, if one can read between the lines, is addressing dirty laundry which the Holy See is prudently not going to hang out for everyone to see. Our Lord's will for the FFI will not be impeded by men. 29 July, 2013 20:29

This comment ignores the second, and main, fact of the intervention - the founder and superior of this Franciscan congregation has been effectively replaced by a Vatican appointee. The founder and superior has been encouraging his men to offer the old mass. This comment is therefore perverse and totally misleading: "[T]he Holy Father wrote a very narrow instruction to one religious community which states that priests who wish to offer EF Mass must ask their superiors first. He did not suppress, abolish, forbid, or even badmouth the EF Mass for the friars. He simply asked that friars work under their superiors in these questions."

There's nothing new under the sun. Anyway, at least it makes things clearer.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:51 am

Alan Aversa

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 amPosts: 438Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Bergoglio information

John Lane wrote:

The answer is that these things, these evils, are being permitted in order that a greater good may come from them.

Very trueI can see it as a lesson for others: Don't be lukewarm in your liturgical preferences. Don't be bi-ritual; either choose the True Mass or be punished without it.

Very trueI can see it as a lesson for others: Don't be lukewarm in your liturgical preferences. Don't be bi-ritual; either choose the True Mass or be punished without it.

Along those lines, I really hope that Francis does in fact force the FSSP, which from what I can tell does not have valid priests, to offer only the Novus Ordo. Several years ago, a large number of people in our own group jumped ship to the FSSP for some completely stupid reason or reasons that I'll never understand, so I recognize that they're a serious and insidious problem for trads.

Speech of Bergoglio to Latin American bishops (28 July 2013) included:

Bergoglio wrote:

Some temptations against missionary discipleship include…

d) The Pelagian solution. This basically appears as a form of restorationism. In dealing with the Church’s problems, a purely disciplinary solution is sought, through the restoration of outdated manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer meaningful. In Latin America it is usually to be found in small groups, in some new religious congregations, in (exaggerated) tendencies to doctrinal or disciplinary “safety”. Basically it is static, although it is capable of inversion, in a process of regression. It seeks to “recover” the lost past.

I looked Pelagianism up in the Catholic Encyclopedia online. This is what I found:

Essential heresies of Pelagianism:1. Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died. 2. Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race. 3. Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall. 4. The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ. 5. The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel. 6. Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.

Council of Carthage (1 May 418) condemned Pelagianism as heresy and approved the following canons:1. Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin. 2. New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin. 3. Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins. 4. The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them. 5. Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works. 6. Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners. 7. The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves. 8. The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness. 9. Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a "middle place" (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the "kingdom of heaven" and from "eternal life".

Since I am not the brightest bulb out here, can someone tell me what Bergoglio means? I can't see how the "restorationists" can be called Pelagian in any way. On the other hand, I can see that most of the Conciliar church has accepted most of the Pelagian heresies. Is this simply a case of "projection" in the psycho-babble sense that he project upon his enemies his own failings or am I just misreading and unable to clearly understand his depth?

I haven't listened to Alan's sermon, but it is indeed very strange that Bergoglio would pick Pelagianism, of all things, to mention at all. Accusing traditional Catholics of it just seems perverse.

Pelagianism is a byword for naturalism. That is, anti-supernaturalism. You know, the absolute essence of the Vatican II revolt. Many, many trads have referred to the Conciliarists as neo-Pelagians, the similarities are so striking. The core of the heresy of Pelagianism is the notion that man can save himself by his own efforts (see canons 3, 4, and 5 above).

My guess as to what Bergo is thinking is based upon his mention in another context of his concern with people "counting rosaries" and then in this speech he refers to "outdated [external] manners and forms." In other words, he thinks that our attachment to Tradition is some kind of externalism, some belief in the magic of external forms which does not require any real corresponding internal life and activity. His choice of ancient heresy to label such a syndrome is extraordinarily poor, if that's what he means. He ought instead to have called us "Pharisees". Oh, hang on, he couldn't use that word as a pejorative...

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:18 am

Recusant

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pmPosts: 284

Re: Bergoglio information

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

Malformed consciences should be corrected, something which Bergoglio, if he even knows the truth these days, assiduously avoids doing. This is yet another classic case of Modernists changing the subject, or at best going along with the world and discussing the wrong question. Bergoglio fosters sin by his perversion of morality, as if it's an entirely subjective matter, rather than a question of compliance with the law.

One may, exceptionally, due to a conscience which is malformed without any fault on one's own part, avoid subjective sin. One will still bear the consequences of the sin other than personal guilt. This is the thing with Modernists - they speak as if sin is not due to the very nature of things, as if it's an arbitrary fiat of God's.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:42 am

Robert Bastaja

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pmPosts: 515

Re: Bergoglio information

Encyclopedia of Catholicism (Novus Ordo) wrote:

"Conscience is the whole self trying to make judgments about who one ought to be” ... and … “The goal of forming conscience is to commit one's freedom to what is right and good so that...one identifies with what one does. The moral decision becomes a commitment of the self to value."

Our Sunday Visitor, Dictionary wrote:

Conscience

The "inner core" of the human person that identifies morally good and evil choices in accord with right reason and the teachings of the Church. From the Greek synderesis and the Latin conscientia, conscience was for St. Paul an awareness of the difference between good and evil. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that conscience is the judgment of practical reason by which is known what is morally correct and the actions to be performed in a situation.

Of course, conscience is actually an act of the practical intellect; it's the application of knowledge to a specific fact. Compare the traditional terminology with the above modernist ideas filled with imprecisions and emotional appeal.

McHugh and Callan explain (from the Summa, q. 79, aa. 11-13) wrote:

Definition:Conscience is an act of judgment on the part of the practical reason deciding by inference from general principles the moral goodness or malice of a particular act.

(a) It is an act, and as such it differs from moral knowledge and intellectual virtues,which are not transitory but enduring. Moral understanding (synderesis), by which everyone naturally perceives the truth of general and self-evident principles of morality [...] these are preparatory to the act of conscience, in which one makes use of one's knowledge to judge of the lawfullness or unlawfulness of an action in the concrete, as attended by all its circumstances.

(b) Conscience is an act of judgment, and thus it differs from other acts employed by prudence - from council about the right means or ways of action, and from command as to their use. Council inquires what is the right thing to do, conscience gives the dictate or decision, the moral command moves to action.

(c) Conscience is in the reason - that is, it is a subjective guide, and differs from the law, which is objective.

Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:52 pm

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Bergoglio information

This appears to be a new interview with Bergoglio, dated 30 September 2013:

A friend of mine (SSPX fan) sent me the link with the notation that "We are in trouble". I've asked him why are we in trouble? I doubt that he will answer me. I haven't read the interview, and I doubt that I will. But if anyone wishes to do so, be my guest...

Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:35 am

Alan Aversa

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 amPosts: 438Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Bergoglio information

Bergolio calls Thomistic manuals "decadent" and "bankrupt"

Bergolio wrote:

Humans are in search of themselves, and, of course, in this search they can also make mistakes. The church has experienced times of brilliance, like that of Thomas Aquinas. But the church has lived also times of decline in its ability to think. For example, we must not confuse the genius of Thomas Aquinas with the age of decadent Thomist commentaries. Unfortunately, I studied philosophy from textbooks that came from decadent or largely bankrupt Thomism. In thinking of the human being, therefore, the church should strive for genius and not for decadence.

Bergolio calls for democritization of the Church, where sentire cum Ecclesia means more than "thinking with the hierarchy"

Bergolio wrote:

This is how it is with Mary: If you want to know who she is, you ask theologians; if you want to know how to love her, you have to ask the people. In turn, Mary loved Jesus with the heart of the people, as we read in the Magnificat. We should not even think, therefore, that ‘thinking with the church’ means only thinking with the hierarchy of the church.

Vatican II was a re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture. Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today—which was typical of Vatican II—is absolutely irreversible. Then there are particular issues, like the liturgy according to the Vetus Ordo. I think the decision of Pope Benedict was prudent and motivated by the desire to help people who have this sensitivity. What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation.

Women must govern the church, make important decisions in Church

Bergolio wrote:

Mary, a woman, is more important than the bishops. I say this because we must not confuse the function with the dignity. We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the church. We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman. Only by making this step will it be possible to better reflect on their function within the church. The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions. The challenge today is this: to think about the specific place of women also in those places where the authority of the church is exercised for various areas of the church.

The seems like a slippery slope down to female bishops…

On doctrinal development: "the church’s teaching" is not "a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings;" dogma = "human self-understanding," "consciousness"(this is vital immanence!)

interviewer wrote:

I ask Pope Bergolio about the enormous changes occurring in society and the way human beings are reinterpreting themselves. At this point he gets up and goes to get the breviary from his desk. It is in Latin, now worn from use. He opens to the Office of Readings for Friday of the 27th Week in Ordinary Time and reads me a passage from the Commonitorium Primum of St. Vincent of Lerins: “Even the dogma of the Christian religion must follow these laws, consolidating over the years, developing over time, deepening with age.”

Is St. Vincent quoted out of context here?

Bergolio's response wrote:

St. Vincent of Lerins makes a comparison between the biological development of man and the transmission from one era to another of the deposit of faith, which grows and is strengthened with time. Here, human self-understanding changes with time and so also human consciousness deepens. Let us think of when slavery was accepted or the death penalty was allowed without any problem. So we grow in the understanding of the truth. Exegetes and theologians help the church to mature in her own judgment. Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding. There are ecclesiastical rules and precepts that were once effective, but now they have lost value or meaning. The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong.

Dogma is unchangeable, though.Doctrine can certainly grow, but it cannot change its mind, taking into account "different understandings."He appears to support "vital immanence." Pascendi is littered with how dogma, the magisterium, faith et al. originate, according to the Modernists, in consciousness (or the subconscious), e.g.,:

Pascendi §12 wrote:

[The Modernists] place the origin of dogma in those primitive and simple formulae, which, under a certain aspect, are necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear manifestation of God in the consciousness.

Doctrine can certainly grow, but it cannot change its mind, taking into account "different understandings."

I am a sinner. This is the most accurate definition. It is not a figure of speech, a literary genre. I am a sinner.

Bergolio wrote:

I believe that we always need time to lay the foundations for real, effective change.

Bergolio wrote:

The Society of Jesus is an institution in tension, always fundamentally in tension. A Jesuit is a person who is not centered in himself. The Society itself also looks to a center outside itself; its center is Christ and his church.

Bergolio wrote:

To be sure, I have never been like Blessed Imelda [a goody-goody], but I have never been a right-winger. It was my authoritarian way of making decisions that created problems

Bergolio wrote:

I do not want token consultations, but real consultations.

Bergolio wrote:

the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle.

Bergolio wrote:

A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.

Bergolio wrote:

The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.

Bergolio wrote:

It is amazing to see the denunciations for lack of orthodoxy that come to Rome. I think the cases should be investigated by the local bishops’ conferences, which can get valuable assistance from Rome. These cases, in fact, are much better dealt with locally.

Bergolio wrote:

We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the church.

Bergolio wrote:

If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing.

Bergolio wrote:

Ours is not a ‘lab faith,’ but a ‘journey faith,’ a historical faith.

Bergolio wrote:

The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong.

He also says the Church is obsessed with abortion, homosexuality, and contraception; however, I would not get this impression at a run-of-the-mill Novus Ordo church anywhere today, due to the infrequency that preachers preach about these important moral issues. Perhaps he realizes the media preaches for the Church on these issues?

Roger Mahoney should be arrested and die in prison. Timothy Dolan is a politicking imbecile who missed his calling as a third rate Mexican game show host. I could go on and on.

She could go on and on in that vein? She should!

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:04 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bergoglio information

I don't know whether the rumour about the college of cardinals has any merit, but this analysis does:

Quote:

We must also remember that Bergoglio is a Jesuit hippy straight out of the 1970s. Hippies are defined by their hatred of authority. Thus, as I have said from the beginning, Bergoglio has always and still does hate the central authority aspect of the Church. This is why he referred to himself from literally his first moment as Pope not as “Pope” but as “Bishop of Rome”. We have a pope who in his heart rejects the papacy itself. Bergoglio does not believe that the Church should be governed by a central authority and instead should be broken up into local synods and bishops conferences who then basically “vote” on what their local “churches” hold as truth. In short, Francis wants to turn the Catholic Church into the Episcopal “church”, which is to say, to destroy the Catholic Church from the inside-out. If you don’t believe me, just look at this quote from his now-infamous interview with the heretical Jesuit magazine America published two weeks ago:

Quote:

“The image of the church I like is that of the holy, faithful people of God. This is the definition I often use … the people itself constitutes a subject. And the church is the people of God on the journey through history, with joys and sorrows. Thinking with the church, therefore, is my way of being a part of this people. And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this infallibilitas in credendo, this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together.”

This is not Ratzinger talking. This is the not-terribly-bright South American Jesuit Bergoglio talking, so we must unpack this statement as such. This is Bergoglio falsely painting the popular will of the people as infallible, and truth as a derivative of the people. The Truth is Jesus Christ, and the Church and every person that ever has or will exist is a derivative of HIM.

Bergoglio is the closest thing we've seen to Montini. He's like a populist Montini. A snake with charm.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:11 am

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Bergoglio information

This is the first I've heard of a rumor that the College of Cardinals is soon to be dissolved or that the very rank of cardinal is to be eliminated.

An astonishing interview. This fellow is beyond mere heresy, he's some kind of naturalist know-nothing.

Non-sedes are always demanding unambiguously heretical statements as evidence. Well this one seems rolled gold to me.

Quote:

Scalfari: Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that's one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.

"And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them.

But there's plenty more in this interview! Oh my!

Quote:

Scalfari: Jesus, as you pointed out, said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Do you think that this has happened?

I can see a condemnation already formulating itself: If anybody says that Our Lord Jesus Christ has not caused an immeasurable increase in charity in the world, or says that after the Incarnation selfishness has increased, let him be anathema!

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:24 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bergoglio information

I mean, wow!

Quote:

The mystic manages to strip himself of action, of facts, objectives and even the pastoral mission and rises until he reaches communion with the Beatitudes.

Just bizarre.

But this is ominous:

Quote:

The Council Fathers knew that being open to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers. But afterwards very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and ambition to want to do something.

He's 'umble, says so hisself. But we already knew that. What's interesting is the notion that the Assisi blasphemies and ARCIC and Ballamand and all the rest of that filth are nothing.

"And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator.

Arianism. Jesus is a different Being from God. And Jesus is not the Creator? Could heresy be any more clear?

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:50 am

Michael Wilson

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 amPosts: 63Location: St. Marys, Kansas

Re: Bergoglio information

Here is a letter in Spanish directed to Francis by a Conservative Catholic woman, who is very disturbed by Francis' actions and statements.

What is interesting about this letter, is that the author participated in various conferences where the Latin American Bishops were present; she states that she has sat across the table from Card. Bergoglio and has spoken to him in some of these reunions. But what most struck her about him, was his deliberate efforts to be different from his fellow bishops; she gives some examples: You were the only one amongst them that did not genuflect in front of the tabernacle nor during the consecration; if all of the other bishops attended a meeting with a cassock or a clergyman, because those were the rules of the meeting, you showed up in a business suit or just a Roman collar. If the others sat in the places reserved for the bishops and Cardinals; you would leave the place reserved for Cardinal Bergoglio open and sit further back telling people: "I'm fine here, I feel more comfortable here." If the rest would arrive in a car which corresponded to their dignity as bishops and Cardinals; you would arrive latter than everyone, disheveled and rushing, telling people in a high voice about the problems you encountered with the public transportation system, that you chose to take you to the meeting.When I witnessed those things, I would think to myself (I'm embarrassed to have to tell you!), "Uf!...what desire to call attention to himself! If he really wanted to be truly humble and simple, wouldn't it have been better to behave like the rest of the bishops, so that nobody would have taken any notice of him?

My comment: It sounds like we are dealing with a narcissist.

_________________"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.

Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:47 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bergoglio information

Michael Wilson wrote:

My comment: It sounds like we are dealing with a narcissist.

Bergoglio doesn't like that word. Could that be why?

Quote:

"I don't like the word narcissism", the Pope said, "it indicates an excessive love for oneself and this is not good, it can produce serious damage not only to the soul of those affected but also in relationship with others, with the society in which one lives. The real trouble is that those most affected by this - which is actually a kind of mental disorder - are people who have a lot of power. Often bosses are narcissists".

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:42 am

Michael Wilson

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 amPosts: 63Location: St. Marys, Kansas

Re: Bergoglio information

Could be the shoe fits too well.

_________________"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.

Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:35 pm

Alan Aversa

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 amPosts: 438Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Bergoglio information

John Lane wrote:

An astonishing interview. This fellow is beyond mere heresy, he's some kind of naturalist know-nothing.

Non-sedes are always demanding unambiguously heretical statements as evidence. Well this one seems rolled gold to me.

It seems more non-sedes adhere to Bp. des Laurier's papa materialiter thesis than we think. Many recognize Francis spouts material heresies, but what trips them up is whether he's pertinacious, and thus formally heretical, or just "mentevacantist." But if he is "mentevacantist," would God allow a madman to be His vicar on earth?

"And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator.

Arianism. Jesus is a different Being from God. And Jesus is not the Creator? Could heresy be any more clear?

Here's my translation (with better punctuation than the one you give):"And I believe in God. Not in a catholic God; a catholic God does not exist; God exists. And I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my master/teacher and pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being."

Yes, it's strange he uses a disjunction between God and Jesus. He also says Jesus Christ is God's incarnation. God becomes man? The Second Person of the Holy Trinity took on human flesh; the Incarnation was not a substantial change from Godness to humanness. So, yes, he certainly is promoting Arianism.

The "autonomous" conscience.His strange distinction between Jesus and God."Proselytism is a solemn stupidity.""The object of our missions is to individualize the material and immaterial needs of the people and attempt to satisfy them.""The Son of God became incarnate in order to infuse into the souls of men the sentiments of brotherhood." He admits to having a mystical experience, when he had just been elected, and asked for a few moments alone to consider his decision.

_________________"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.

Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:28 am

csibf

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 amPosts: 161

Re: Bergoglio information

"And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God,"

Here is the answer to, "Is the pope Catholic?

Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:42 am

Alan Aversa

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 amPosts: 438Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Bergoglio information

Michael Wilson wrote:

He admits to having a mystical experience, when he had just been elected, and asked for a few moments alone to consider his decision.

His conception of mysticism:

Quote:

The mystic manages to strip himself of action, of facts, objectives and even the pastoral mission and rises until he reaches communion with the Beatitudes. Brief moments but which fill an entire life.

Mystics have an objective that is a fact: union with God. How can a mystic detach himself from facts, from truth?

He's the most full-blown phenomenologist, the least disguised phenomenologist, that I have ever had the displeasure to observe. He literally abandons any semblance of the objective, of reality as something outside of and independent of the self. It is not that he rejects it. He doesn’t reject the objective reality, no, he ignores it, he regards it as irrelevant, he does not wish to grace it with any attention. To speak of objective reality is, for Bergoglio, to waste one’s time, and it is to speak in a misleading manner. There’s nothing of interest there; what is interesting to this heretic and nut, is one’s experiences, one’s views, one’s subjective impressions. All else is a bore. For such an one, truth is a concept that sane people would not recognise, for to the rest of us truth is the correspondence between the mind and reality. For Bergoglio, there is no reality which is truly independent of the mind; therefore there can be no truth as traditionally defined.

Of course he isn’t consistent - no rejecter of Aristotelian philosophy is or can be, precisely because Aristotle was right about the way things really are, and the way the human mind really works. Once we reject the perennial philosophy we are all at sea. So Bergoglio complains about traditionalists’ attachment to the true Mass (he attempts to relativise it by re-naming it), warning against “the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation.” If our attachment to the true Mass is, like all human values, purely a matter of subjective impressions, then why are they not of equal value with everybody else’s? Bergoglio would reply, “They are, but the worry is that you seek to impose your views on others,” to which we answer with two points.

1. All of the imposing has been done by your heroes and predecessors, the Modernists. You hypocrite!

2. If all ideas are truly of equal value, as your philosophy necessarily implies, then our own are beyond criticism, including our belief in objective truth and especially, divinely revealed objective truth. If you were consistent, you would say, “Who am I to judge?” but you don’t, because you reserve that diffidence for sins which cry to heaven to vengeance, whilst you hold faithful Christians in contempt. You liar and hypocrite!

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:36 am

Alan Aversa

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 amPosts: 438Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Bergoglio information

John Lane wrote:

1. All of the imposing has been done by your heroes and predecessors, the Modernists. You hypocrite!

2. If all ideas are truly of equal value, as your philosophy necessarily implies, then our own are beyond criticism, including our belief in objective truth and especially, divinely revealed objective truth. If you were consistent, you would say, “Who am I to judge?” but you don’t, because you reserve that diffidence for sins which cry to heaven to vengeance, whilst you hold faithful Christians in contempt. You liar and hypocrite!

Honestly, just about every passage of Pascendi applies to him. How prophetic our saintly pope!

Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi wrote:

The dogmas brim over with flagrant contradictions [according to Modernists], but what matter that since, apart from the fact that vital logic accepts them, they are not repugnant to symbolical truth. Are we not dealing with the infinite, and has not the infinite an infinite variety of aspects? In short, to maintain and defend these theories they do not hesitate to declare that the noblest homage that can be paid to the Infinite is to make it the object of contradictory propositions! But when they justify even contradiction, what is it that they will refuse to justify?

Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi wrote:

Let us for a moment put the question: if experiences have so much value in their eyes, why do they not attach equal weight to the experience that thousands upon thousands of Catholics have that the Modernists are on the wrong road? It is, perchance, that all experiences except those felt by the Modernists are false and deceptive?

He has unveiled the true program of his pontificate in two interviews and a letter to an atheist intellectual. With respect to the popes who preceded him the separation appears ever more clear. In words and in deeds

by Sandro Magister

Quote:

ROME, October 3, 2013 – The first meeting, in these days, of the eight cardinals called to consultation by Pope Francis and his visit tomorrow to Assisi, the city of the saint whose name he has taken, are acts that certainly characterize the beginning of this pontificate.

But even more characterizing, in defining its approach, have been four media events of the month just ended:

- his letter in reply to the questions addressed to him publicly by Eugenio Scalfari (in the photo), the founder of the leading secular Italian newspaper, "la Repubblica,"

- his subsequent conversation-interview with Scalfari,

- and another letter in reply to another champion of militant atheism, the mathematician Piergiorgio Odifreddi, this last written not by the current pope but by his living predecessor.

Anyone who might wish to understand in what direction Francis intends to proceed and in what he is separating himself from Benedict XVI and from other popes who proceeded him need do nothing other than study and compare these four texts.

*

In the interview with pope Bergoglio in "La Civiltà Cattolica" there is a passage that has been universally perceived as a clear reversal of stance with respect not only to Benedict XVI but also to John Paul II.

"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel."

Naturally Pope Francis is well aware that also for the two popes who preceded him the absolute priority was the proclamation of the Gospel; that for John Paul II the mercy of God was so central as to dedicate a Sunday of the liturgical year to it; that Benedict XVI wrote precisely about Jesus as true God and true man the book of his life as theologian and pastor; that in short none of all this divides him from them.

Francis must also know that the same consideration applies to the bishops who more than all the rest have acted in harmony with his two predecessor popes. For example, in Italy, Cardinal Camillo Ruini. Whose "cultural project" centered key events precisely on God and on Jesus.

There was however in Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger, and pastors like Ruini or in the United States the cardinals Francis George and Timothy Dolan the intuition that the proclamation of the Gospel today could not be disjointed from a critical interpretation of the advancing new vision of man, in radical contrast with the man created by God in his image and likeness, and from a consequent action of pastoral leadership.

And it is here that pope Francis separates himself. In his interview with "La Civiltà Cattolica" there is another key passage. To Fr. Antonio Spadaro, who asks him about the current "anthropological challenge," he replies in an elusive manner. He demonstrates that he does not latch onto the epochal gravity of the transition of civilization analyzed and forcefully contested by Benedict XVI and by John Paul II before him. He shows himself convinced that it is more worthwhile to respond to the challenges of the present with the simple proclamation of the merciful God, that God who "makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and makes it rain on the just and on the unjust."

In Italy, but not only there, it was the cardinal and Jesuit Carlo Maria Martini who represented this alternative orientation to John Paul II, to Benedict XVI, and to Cardinal Ruini.

In the United States it was Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin who represented it, before the leadership of the episcopal conference passed to cardinals George and Dolan, very loyal to Wojtyla and Ratzinger.

The followers and admirers of Martini and Bernardin today see in Francis the pope who is giving shape to their expectations of a comeback.

And just as a Cardinal Martini was and continues to be very popular in the public opinion outside of and hostile to the Church, the same is happening for the current pope.

*

The exchange of letters and the subsequent conversation between Francis and the professed atheist Scalfari help to explain this popularity of the pope even "in partibus infidelium."

One passage of the article of August 7 in which Scalfari posed questions to him was already indicative of the positive idea that the founder of "la Repubblica" had formed of the current pope:

"His mission contains two scandalous innovations: the poor Church of Francis, the horizontal Church of Martini. And a third: a God who does not judge, but forgives. There is no damnation, there is no hell."

Having received and published the letter of reply from Bergoglio, in commenting on it Scalfari added this other satisfied consideration:

"An openness to modern and secular culture of this breadth, such a profound vision between conscience and its autonomy, has never before been heard from the chair of St. Peter.”

In affirming this, Scalfari was referring in particular to what Pope Francis had written to him about the primacy of conscience:

"The question lies in obeying one's conscience. Sin, even for one who does not have the faith, is present when one goes against conscience. Listening to and obeying it means, in fact, deciding in the face of that which is perceived as good or evil. And on this decision hinges the goodness or wickedness of our actions."

Francis had not added anything else. And some observant readers wondered how such a subjective definition of conscience, in which the individual appears as the sole criterion of the decision, could be reconciled with the idea of conscience as the journey of man toward the truth, an idea developed by centuries of theological reflection, from Augustine to Newman, and forcefully reiterated by Benedict XVI.

But in the subsequent conversation with Scalfari, Pope Francis was even more drastic in reducing conscience to a subjective act:

"Each one of us has his own vision of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and to fight the evil as he understands them. This would be enough to change the world.”

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Enlightenment-style atheist Scalfari should have written that he “perfectly shares” these words of Bergoglio on conscience.

Just as there is no surprise in his pleased acceptance of these other words of the pope, almost a program of the new pontificate, or “the most urgent problem that the Church is facing”:

"Our objective is not proselytism, but listening to the needs, the desires, the disappointments, the desperation, the hope. We must bring hope back to the young, help the old, open to the future, spread love. Poor among the poor. We must include the excluded and preach peace. Vatican II, inspired by Pope John and Paul VI, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to open to modern culture. The council fathers knew that opening to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with nonbelievers. After then, very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and the ambition to want to do it.”

There is nothing in this program of the pontificate that could turn out to be unacceptable to the dominant secular opinion. Even the judgment that John Paul II and Benedict XVI did “very little” in opening to the modern spirit is in line with this opinion. The secret of the popularity of Francis is in the generosity with which he concedes to the expectations of “modern culture” and in the shrewdness with which he dodges that which could become a sign of contradiction.

In this he decisively separates himself from his predecessors, including Paul VI. There is a passage in the homily that then-archbishop of Munich Ratzinger pronounced at the death of Pope Giovanni Battista Montini, on August 10, 1978, that is extraordinarily illuminating, in part on account of its reference to conscience “that is measured by the truth”:

"A pope who today would not undergo criticism would be failing in his task in the face of these times. Paul VI resisted telecracy and demoscopy, the two dictatorial powers of the present. He was able to do so because he did not take success and approval as the parameter, but rather conscience, which is measured by the truth, by the faith. This is why on many occasions he sought compromise: the faith leaves very much open, it offers a wide spectrum of decisions, it imposes as the parameter love, which feels obligated toward everything and therefore imposes great respect. This is why he was able to be inflexible and decisive when what was at stake was the essential tradition of the Church. In him this toughness did not derive from the insensitivity of one whose journey is dictated by the pleasure of power and by disdain for persons, but from the profundity of the faith, which made him capable of bearing the opposition.”

*

In confirmation of that which distances Pope Francis from his predecessors has come precisely the letter with which Ratzinger-Benedict XVI - breaking his silence after his resignation - responded to the book “Dear pope, I write to you” published in 2011 by the mathematician Piergiorgio Odifreddi.

Both of the past two popes have dialogued willingly with professed atheists and secular opinion leaders, but they have done so in very different forms. If Francis dodges the stumbling blocks, Ratzinger instead emphasizes them.

It should be enough to read this passage of his letter to Odifreddi:

"What you say about the figure of Jesus is not worthy of your stature as a scholar. If you pose the question as if ultimately nothing were known about Jesus and that nothing were ascertainable about him as a historical figure, then I can only invite you in a decisive way to make yourself a bit more competent from a historical point of view. For this I recommend to you above all the four volumes that Martin Hengel (an exegete of the Protestant theological faculty of Tübingen) published together with Maria Schwemer: it is an excellent example of precision and of very broad historical information. In the face of this, what you say about Jesus is careless talk that should not be repeated. That in exegesis there have been written also many things of scarce seriousness is, unfortunately, an incontestable fact. The American seminar on Jesus that you cite on pages 105 and ff. confirm only once again that which Albert Schweitzer had noted with regard to the Leben-Jesu-Forschung (research on the life of Jesus), and that is that the so-called 'historical Jesus' is for the most part the reflection of the ideas of the authors. These maladroit forms of historical work, however, do not in any way compromise the importance of serious historical research, which has led to true and sure knowledge about the proclamation and figure of Jesus."

And further on:

"If you want to replace God with 'Nature,' there remains the question of who or what this nature may be. In no place do you define this, and it therefore appears as an irrational divinity that does not explain anything. I would like, however, above all to note also that in your religion of mathematics three fundamental themes of human existence remain unconsidered: freedom, love, and evil. I am amazed that with a single comment you would dismiss freedom, which nevertheless was and is the foundational value of the modern age. Love, in your book, does not appear and also about evil there is no information. Whatever neurobiology may say or not say about freedom, in the real drama of our history it is present as a decisive reality and must be taken into consideration. But your mathematical religion does not acknowledge any information about evil. A religion that overlooks these fundamental questions remains empty.

"My criticism of your book is in part a harsh one. But frankness is part of dialogue; only this way can understanding grow. You have been very frank, and thus you will accept that I should be so as well. In any case, however, I consider very positively the fact that you, through your engagement with my 'Introduction to Christianity,' should have sought such an open dialogue with the faith of the Catholic Church and that, in spite of all the contrast, in the central field of interest convergences should not be entirely lacking."

*

So much for the words. But to distance the last two popes are also arriving the facts.

The ban imposed by pope Bergoglio on the congregation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate against celebrating the Mass in the ancient rite has been an effective restriction of that freedom of celebrating in this rite which Benedict XVI had guaranteed for all.

It emerges from conversations with his visitors that Ratzinger himself has seen in this restriction a "vulnus" on his 2007 motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum."

In the interview with “La Civiltà Cattolica," Francis dismissed the liberalization of the ancient rite decided by Benedict XVI as a simple "prudential decision motivated by the desire to help people who have this sensitivity," when instead the intention made explicit by Ratzinger - expressed at the time in a letter to the bishops of the whole world - was that “the two forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching."

In the same interview, Francis defined the postconciliar liturgical reform as “a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation." A strongly reductive definition with respect to the vision of the liturgy that was proper to Ratzinger as theologian and pope.

Moreover, also in this field, Francis replaced en bloc last September 26 the five advisors of the office of papal liturgical celebrations.

Among those removed was for example Fr. Uwe Michael Lang, a liturgist for whom Ratzinger himself wrote the preface to his most important book, dedicated to the orientation of liturgical prayer "to the Lord."

While among those promoted are liturgists much more inclined to second the celebratory style of Pope Francis, this too visibly far from the inspired "ars celebrandi" of Benedict XVI.

_________

The interview with Francis in "La Civiltà Cattolica," made public in multiple languages on September 19:

> A Big Hearth Open to God

The pope's letter to Eugenio Scalfari, published in "la Repubblica" of September 11:

> "Pregiatissimo Dottor Scalfari…"

The subsequent conversation between the pope and Scalfari, which took place on September 24 at the Vatican residence of Santa Marta and was published in "la Repubblica" of October 1:

> Il papa a Scalfari: Così cambierò la Chiesa

The passages of the letter from Joseph Ratzinger to Piergiorgio Odifreddi previewed in "la Repubblica" of September 24:

> Ratzinger: Caro Odifreddi, le racconto chi era Gesù

__________

Before pope Bergoglio, Scalfari had an even more intense relationship with the cardinal and Jesuit Carlo Maria Martini, archbishop of Milan from 1979 to 2002.

In particular, Scalfari reviewed very favorably the book that is perhaps most revealing of the vision of that cardinal on Christianity and the Church, 'Nighttime conversations in Jerusalem. On the risk of the faith," published in 2008, a book very widely read and discussed inside and outside of the Church:

> God Is Not Catholic, Cardinal's Word of Honor

As the atheist he professes himself to be, Scalfari wrote that he found it comforting that "the Son of Man for Martini should be much more pregnant than the Son of God."

At the time, one of Martini's expressions in that book was very striking: "You cannot make God Catholic." It is significant that this should have returned from the mouth of Pope Francis in the conversation with Scalfari of last September 24: "I believe in God. Not in a Catholic God, there exists no Catholic God, there exists God."

__________

On the peak and decline of the leadership of Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin in the Catholic Church of the United States, one thorough analysis is that published by George Weigel in "First Things" in February of 2011:

> The End of the Bernardin Era

__________

Benedict XVI dwelt on the question of conscience in particular in 2010, during his voyage in Great Britain with the beatification of John Henry Newman, and yet again in the pre-Christmas address to the Roman curia of that same year:

> "Conscience means the capacity of man to recognize the truth…"

For its part, the homily of then-cardinal Ratzinger at the death of Paul VI, it too with a reference to conscience "that is measured by the truth," was published for the first time at the beginning of last August in a special issue of "L'Osservatore Romano," at the fiftieth anniversary of the election of pope Montini.

__________

English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

__________

_________________"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.

Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:07 am

Michael Wilson

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 amPosts: 63Location: St. Marys, Kansas

Re: Bergoglio information

Did Francis forget exactly when he had his unique mystical experience?

Rome – While stressing the basic “trustworthiness” of a recent blockbuster interview with Pope Francis by Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, left room on Oct. 2 for the possibility of small imprecisions.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, who was among the cardinals who elected Francis, today confirmed one such error – a point of fact, as it happens, with important implications for understanding the immediate reaction of Pope Francis to his election.

Dolan told NCR that in contrast to the scene described by Scalfari, there was no moment when Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina left the Sistine Chapel after his election but before accepting the papacy.

Instead, Dolan said, Francis accepted immediately and then left the Sistine Chapel, as is customary, to vest in the "room of tears" before returning to greet the cardinals.

NCR's newest blog, The Francis Chronicles, reports on the ministry of the world's parish priest. Sign up for email alerts so you won't miss a thing.

“He never left the Sistine Chapel before accepting,” Dolan said. “All that came later.”

Dolan spoke to NCR at the North American College in Rome.

The Scalfari interview was published by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica Oct. 1, setting off shock waves due to the pope’s candor on multiple fronts – calling the trappings of a royal court in the Vatican “leprosy,” complaining that too many church officials are “Vatican-centric,” and so on.

Pressed by reporters on the reliability of the direct quotations, Lombardi said during an Oct. 2 briefing that the text accurately captured the “sense” of what the pope had said, and that if Francis felt his thought had been “gravely misrepresented,” he would have said so.

Nonetheless, Lombardi stopped short of saying that every line was literally as pronounced by the pope, suggesting instead that it represents a new genre of papal speech that’s deliberately informal and not concerned with precision.

Respected French Vatican writer Jean-Marie Guénois confirmed with Scalfari that he didn’t tape the interview, nor did he take notes, so the text was an after-the-fact reconstruction. Scalfari said he showed the text to Francis for his approval, but it’s not clear how closely the pope read it.

At one point in the text, Scalfari raises the question of mysticism with Pope Francis, and asks if he’s had mystical experiences.

Here is the reply as presented by Scalfari, in the English translation La Repubblica published of the interview:

“Rarely. For example, when the conclave elected me Pope. Before I accepted I asked if I could spend a few minutes in the room next to the one with the balcony overlooking the square. My head was completely empty and I was seized by a great anxiety. To make it go way and relax I closed my eyes and made every thought disappear, even the thought of refusing to accept the position, as the liturgical procedure allows. I closed my eyes and I no longer had any anxiety or emotion. At a certain point I was filled with a great light. It lasted a moment, but to me it seemed very long. Then the light faded, I got up suddenly and walked into the room where the cardinals were waiting and the table on which was the act of acceptance. I signed it, the Cardinal Camerlengo countersigned it and then on the balcony there was the ‘Habemus Papam’.”

The suggestion as presented by Scalfari seems to be that, overwhelmed by the magnitude of his election, and possibly thinking about refusing the job, Bergoglio excused himself to go to another room, and only then accepted.

As veteran Italian Vatican writer Andrea Tornielli has pointed out, however, there is no room next to the balcony overlooking St. Peter’s Square, which is located in the middle of a long hallway, raising doubt about the literal accuracy of the quotation.

In any event, Dolan said, the sequence put on the pope’s lips by Scalfari is out of order.

Francis did not hesitate before accepting his election, Dolan said, although there was a moment later when he paused in prayer before stepping out onto the balcony for the “Habemus Papam” announcement.

In effect, what this suggests is that the mystical moment to which Francis referred didn’t convince him to accept the papacy, which he had already done, but rather to feel serene about the burden having already taken it up.

It’s a small point, perhaps, which arguably doesn’t alter the big picture presented by Scalfari. Given that this is the pope, however, one could also argue that small points matter.

* * *

UPDATE: A Vatican spokesperson confirmed this afternoon that the interview with Pope Francis by Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari ran the risk of “either missing some key details or conflating various moments or events recounted during the oral interview.”

With reference to Francis’ acceptance of the papacy, Fr. Thomas Rosica, who assists the Vatican with English-language media, issued a statement by e-mail that read:

“Cardinals who witnessed the events have categorically stated that the newly elected pope never left the Sistine chapel for a period of reflection before finally accepting the papacy other than his entering the ‘room of tears’ for vesting.”

“There was never any indication of hesitation, a need for serious reflection on the election that had taken place, or rethinking what had befallen him!” Rosica wrote.

Rosica also writes that Scalfari “did not tape his interview with Pope Francis, nor did he take notes, so the text was an after-the-fact reconstruction.”

Rosica suggests that the "mystical moment" referred to in the interview likely occurred in the Vatican's Pauline Chapel, after Francis had accepted his election but before stepping out onto the balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square.

What I don't understand is that if Scalfari didn't take notes or record the interview, the why didn't Francis just make him a ghostwriter of an "encyclical"?

This claim is simply not credible. I don't believe that a professional journalist published what he claimed to be lengthy quotations but didn't take notes or record the interview. The entire claim is simply not credible.

Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:44 pm

Alan Aversa

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 amPosts: 438Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Bergoglio information

TKGS wrote:

Alan Aversa wrote:

What I don't understand is that if Scalfari didn't take notes or record the interview, then why didn't Francis just make him a ghostwriter of an "encyclical"?

This claim is simply not credible. I don't believe that a professional journalist published what he claimed to be lengthy quotations but didn't take notes or record the interview. The entire claim is simply not credible.

What I don't understand is that if Scalfari didn't take notes or record the interview, the why didn't Francis just make him a ghostwriter of an "encyclical"?

This claim is simply not credible. I don't believe that a professional journalist published what he claimed to be lengthy quotations but didn't take notes or record the interview. The entire claim is simply not credible.

Bishop Bernard Fellay warned on October 12, “The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”

He said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City.

Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, gave an extensive lecture on Saturday afternoon that focused on the Third Secret of Fatima, and its apparent prediction of both a material chastisement and a great crisis in the Church.

This report will highlight some of the more dramatic aspects of the Bishop’s Saturday conference and his Sunday sermon.

Bishop Fellay quoted in detail Sister Lucy, those who have read the Third Secret, and those who have knowledge of the Secret. He noted Sister Lucia said that if we want to know the contents of the Third Secret, read chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalpse.” (details of the Third Secret will be contained in the upcoming November edition of Catholic Family News)

Sister Lucia’s reference to Chapters 8 through 13 of the Apocalypse is particularly chilling, since the end of Chapter 13 speaks of the coming of Antichrist.

Bishop Fellay noted that Pope St. Pius X said at the beginning of his pontificate the ‘son of perdition’ may already be on the earth. He also noted the original prayer to Saint Michael of Pope Leo XIII mentions that Satan aims to establish his seat in Rome.

The bishop quoted Cardinal Luigi Ciapi, the Papal Theologian of all the Popes from Pius XII to John Paul II who said, “In the Third Secret we read among other things that the great apostasy in the Church begins at the top.”

He also spent a good bit of time on the famous and dramatic 1957 interview of Father Fuentes with Sister Lucia, in which she reiterated that “various nations will disappear from the face of the earth,” and that “the devil will do all in his power to overcome souls consecrated to God.”

Since the ministers of God are struck with this confusion and disorder, the faithful are left to fend for themselves for their own salvation. The help that should be provided by Churchmen is not there. This is “the greatest tragedy you can ever imagine for the Church.”

The times are very serious. We have to be serious about our salvation, “and to do this we are deprived of a very important element, which is the support of the [Church] authorities. What a tragedy.”

He spoke of Sister Lucia’s comforting words that God has given two last remedies for us: The Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart.

Rome/SSPX

Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now [under Pope Francis] we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.”

He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided [still] to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”

As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”

“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.”

He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.

“The [April 15, 2012] text we presented to Rome was a very, shall we say, delicate text that was supposed to be understood correctly; it was supposed to be read with a big principle which was leading the whole thing. This big principle was no novelty in the Church: ‘The Holy Ghost has not been promised to Saint Peter and his Successor in such a way that through a new revelation the Pope would teach something new, but under his help, the pope would the Pope would saintly conserve and faithfully transmit the deposit of the Faith.’ It belongs to the definition of infallibility [from Vatican I]. That was the principle, the base of the whole document, which excludes from the start any kind of novelty.

“And so take any kind of sentences from the text without this principle is just to take sentences that have never been our thinking and our life. These phrases in themselves are ambiguous, so to take away the ambiguity we wanted to put [in] this principle [from Vatican I]. Unfortunately, maybe that was too subtle and that’s why we withdrew that text, because it was not clear enough as it was written.

“So it is very clear our principle is always the same to stay faithful! We have received a treasure. This treasure does not ‘belong’ to us. We have received this treasure and we have to hand it to the next generation. And what is requested from us is faithfulness, fidelity. We do not have the right to jeopardize these treasures. These are the treasures we have in our hands and we are not going to jeopardize them.

Pope Francis

Bishop Fellay returned to Sister Lucia’s 1957 statement that the Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart are the two last remedies God has given to mankind.

He said there is “definitely a ‘material’ chastisement of the world in sight. There is something big in front of us. How? When? I have no idea. But if you put everything together, it is clear that God has had enough of the sins of man.”

He then spoke of those sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, such as abortion, and the sins against nature, which was an illusion to the unnatural ‘re-definition’ of marriage and related sins. He also spoke of what appears to be a coming persecution of Christians.

“What do we do? Don’t panic, because panic is of no use at all. What you need to do is your job – your daily duty. That is the best way to prepare.”

He continued that we are in “very scary times” but we are not helpless. He noted the “the situation of the Church is a real disaster. And the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”

“In the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, I said, ‘the crisis in the Church will continue, but the Pope is trying to put on the brakes.’ It’s as if to say, the Church will continue to fall, but with a parachute. And with the beginning of this [Pope Francis] pontificate, I say, ‘he cuts the strings, and he put a [downward] rocket’.”

“If the present pope continues in the way he started, he is going to divide the Church. He’s exploding everything. So people will say: it is impossible that’s he’s the Pope, we refuse him. Others will say [and this is presently Bishop Fellay’s position]: “Wait, consider him as Pope, but don’t follow him. He’s provoking anger. Many people will be discouraged by what people in the Church do” and will be tempted to “throw it all away.”

But, he reminded, God is “much, much bigger than we are. God is able to have the Church continue” and even can work through these imperfect ministers. “But once again”, he repeats, “don’t follow them. Follow them when they say the truth, but when they tell you rubbish, you don’t” follow them on those points. “Any obedience to be true must be related to God. When I say I obey to a person” he should be a “a mirror of God.” But “when mirror tells me contrary of God, it is no longer a mirror, then I don’t follow him.”

Bishop Fellay noted that we cannot simply obey the present Popes without question, because then we would destroy ourselves, we would endanger our Faith.

Following the warning of Sister Lucia, Pope Leo XIII and Pius X, Bishop Fellay further warned that we may be entering into the time of Antichrist, but we cannot know when, or how far off in the future this may be.

Sunday Sermon

Bishop Fellay returned to these themes at his Sunday sermon at the Pontifical High Mass offered at St. Vincent de Paul’s Church in Kansas city.

He amplified a few points regarding Fatima, the Secret, the 2012 drama with Rome, and then spoke of some of the many grave problems with Pope Francis.

“From the start,” he said, “we have the impression that we have something wrong with this Pope. From the start, he wanted to distinguish himself to be different from anybody else.”

A small example of this is Francis’ insistence on wearing black shoes instead of the red papal shoes, but this is minor compared to greater issues. We must look, said the bishop, at what is his vision of the Church, his vision of the council, and what is his plan.

It was around the time of World Youth Day, late July of this year, that Francis began an avalanche of talks, interviews, phone calls, etc. “We may not have the entire picture at this point, we have enough to be scared to death.”

As is typical of the Modernist, as Pius X warned in Pascendi, the Modernist will sometimes speak in a heretical fashion, and then speak in an orthodox manner. Bishop Fellay gave the example of one of these contradictions:

He spoke of interview in early October that Pope Francis conducted with the atheist journalist Eugenio Scalfari in Rome’s La Repubblica wherein Francis appears to promote a dangerous relativism:

Scalfari: “Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?”

Pope Francis: “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good.”

Scalfari: “Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that's one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.”

Pope Francis: “And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."

With a good deal of emotion, Bishop Fellay said of the Pope’s response: “That’s really not Catholic! Because whatever I think has absolutely no value if it does not fit with reality. We have a conscience, but it will only lead us to Heaven if our conscience is a mirror of God.” The conscience must be formed according to God’s law. “So to pretend that anyone can full his own idea is just rubbish,” said Fellay, “It has nothing to do with Catholic teaching. It is absolute relativism.”

About a week after this, however, Pope Francis spoke of the necessity of fighting the devil, the final battle with the devil, that nobody can fight the devil half way, and that we must fight relativism. Francis said the opposite what he said to La Repubblica. “There is the contraction with him”.

Francis: A Man of the Council

Next: what is the vision of Pope Francis on Vatican II? This is found in his much-publicized recent, lengthy interview with the Jesuits, published in various publications throughout the world, and in the Jesuit’s America magazine in the United States

Bishop Fellay says that Pope Francis “takes it for granted that the Council was bright success. What was the main theme of the Council?” To re-read the Faith in light of modern culture. You could say, “to incarnate the Gospel in the modern world.” Francis “is very happy with this…” and believes “The Council brought forth many good fruits. The first example he gives is liturgy – the reformed liturgy. That is the beautiful fruit of the Council. That’s what he says. And he’s very happy with it.”

Francis tells us “this re-reading of the Gospel within the modern culture is irreversible, so we will not go back. We are in front of a major fight.”

Of the Old Mass, Francis speaks of “Vetus Ordo” (Old Order). Francis believes that Pope Benedict probably helped restore the Old Mass as a prudential act for those who still hold to it. “But don’t expect Francis to come back to the Old Mass. Maybe he will ‘indulge’ it [let us celebrate it unmolested]. God knows.”

But Francis “sees there is a problem with this Old Mass. Because there are people who ideologize this Mass. Guess to whom he is aiming? I don’t need to say much. So what is going to happen with us? What I see: there is quite an obsession in him about those people who look to the past. Listen to the Pope’s words:

Pope Francis: “What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation. … If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists­—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life.”

Bishop Fellay continues, “The impression we have in the present Pope is that he has a zeal for the ‘more or less’, for the ‘about’; and he wants at all cost to escape what is too clear and too certain. But the Faith is like that because God is like that. Well, that’s not what he thinks.”

Another troubling quote from Pope Francis:

“If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt.”

Bishop Fellay exclaims in response: “What Gospel does he have? Which Bible does he have to say such things. It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith. That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethen. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist.”

"How much time will be needed for people in the Church to stand up ‘by no means!’ [will we accept this new teaching]. I hope and pray this will happen. But that means an enormous division in the Church.”

He speaks of the Pope Making a mess, and reminds us that this is what the Pope urged at world Youth Day: he urged the young people to “make a mess”. Bishop Fellay responds, ”Incredible. We have never heard of this [a Pope speaking like this]. But that’s what he wants.

Francis also tells us he is a greater admirer of the ultra liberal Jesuit Cardinal Martini (now deceased). Martini wrote a book calling for a total revolution in the Church. “And that is what Francis wants. And he told us the eight cardinal he chose to help him ‘reform’ the Church think like him.

We could go on and on.

The final example: Ecumenism.

' Bishop Fellay says, that Pope Francis claims that “very little has been done in this direction.” This is astounding, the bishop notes, because ecumenism has launched untold disaster to the Church, to Catholic nations. “Yet the present Pope says, “very little, almost nothing done in this direction.”

Bishop Fellay says as part of his summing up: “The mystery of the shadow on the Church has never been so great. We are in front of very hard times. Don’t have any illusions. And it is clear the only solution is to stick to what we have; to keep it, to not let it go by any means.

“Pope St. Pius X said that it was the essence of any Catholic to stick to the past. The present Pope says exactly the contrary: forget about the past; throw yourself into the uncertainty of the future

“Definitely we need the Immaculate Heart of Mary. What are experiencing is the Secret of Fatima. We know what we have to do: pray, pray, pray, and penance, penance, penance. To pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the means given to us precisely in these hard times; and to pray the Rosary.

“Be certain,” says Bishop Fellay, “The next [Rosary] Crusade is not far off. Go to the Rosary. Pray it every day. We live in very dangerous time for the Faith, and we need this Heavenly protection.”

- More on this topic will be will be contained in the upcoming November edition of Catholic Family News

English translation (this is from google translate so there will be some errors):

Freemason WRITES TO POPE FRANCIS :" PUT AN END TO DIVISIONS which incur IN OUR RELATIONS "

Rome , October 9, 2013 - " With great emotion and infinite joy I turn to you to make your Holiness a humble request that efforts be made to end the divisions that exist in the relations between the Catholic Church and Freemasonry , with the hope that eventually there may reign right serenity between the two components , putting an end to the differences that still raise a wall between the reports . "

Begins with these words the letter from the Most Serene Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Italy Umsoi Gianfranco Pilloni to His Holiness Pope Francis. A real call for peace and acceptance, which bases its foundations on the values ​​and principles common to the two realities .

" [...] We are not a component hostile to the Catholic Church worthily represented by you , in fact , far from it - the letter continues - Our streets are parallel , in fact we think like you for all of the problems facing contemporary society , such as you we strive for World Peace and for the respect of the human beings without distinction of any kind and absolute respect towards all religions . "

The history of the dispute between the Church and Freemasonry begins April 28, 1738 , when Pope Clement XII , in his Apostolic Letter In eminent , warns believers against Freemasonry , henceforth condemned by several popes in almost 600 documents.

In 1983 he disappears from the new Code of Canon Law the word " excommunication " against the Masons. To silence the rumors of a big breakthrough , November 26 , 1983 Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith , confirms the judgment of the Church about the Masonic associations and , therefore, the membership of these remains prohibited under penalty of exclusion from the sacraments : " Those who register to Freemasonry are in mortal sin and may not receive communion. The judgment of the Church , therefore, remains unchanged . "

In the letter sent by the Grand Master Gianfranco Pilloni to the Holy Father , the emphasis is really on the consequences that this closure has caused over the years.

" The position that the Church has held and still holds - explains Gianfranco Pilloni the letter - penalizes the Brethren Masons that are Catholic , forcing them to profess the faith of the Church on the edge and making them feel almost faithful little or unwanted intruders ."

On the occasion of the inauguration of the Roman Piazza Campo Marzio , in September of 2012, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Italy Umsoi had tried to dispel the stereotypes associated with the common thought on Freemasonry : " It is not a secret business lobby . The nature of Freemasonry is humanitarian , philosophical, and moral . Stimulates tolerance. Practices justice, helps the needy, promotes love of neighbor. Masonry leaves to each of its members the choice and the responsibility for their own religious views and there is a relationship of absolute respect towards all religions. And is apolitical and imposes on its members the duties of civic loyalty . If he had any element of secrecy , we would not have opened an office in Piazza Campo Marzio , opposite to the institutions . "

The closure of the Church and of most of the public , however, has never ceased to exist."I ask you , Your Holiness , for an effort to completely eliminate outdated intolerance towards us, publicly , by accepting me as a result of my supplication to You - said the Grand Master Gianfranco Pilloni in the letter - to transform our Temples Temples Peace , meeting places , places of witness and of the highest elevated feelings of solidarity and brotherhood of man . "

One wonders now if His Holiness Pope Francesco decides to respond to this letter , accepting this olive branch and putting the word "end" to the eternal dispute between the Church and Freemasonry. >> END PRESS

One and only one is the answer that Codest Grand Master should receive. This answer is almost as old as the modern Masonic institution which boasts of belonging , the replica that you should put the letter of the age has Pilloni next to the tribulations of the Masonic 1717-1723 , 275 years ago this response and unchanged must persist in our memories and consciences, to yardstick of today's zeitgeist , as a warning for what is now, to call for what will come.

Be aware more than ever that replica will be given to the Bishop of Rome Pilloni Bergoglio we want to bring back at least a part of that answer. In honor of this response Tradition echoes from April 28, 1738 :

" ... Do ordain having to condemn and prohibit , as with the present Constitution of ours , to be valid in perpetuity, condemn and forbid the aforementioned companies , Unions , Meetings, Meetings , or combinations of the Freemasons or Conventicles des Francs Maçons , or by any other name calls ... "

For the record, we attach two photos of the Most Serene Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Italy Umsoi Gian Franco Pilloni ( published by him on said facebook profile ) in the left laying in the temple, one on the right holds a partnership with two loggias U.S.

_________________Thomas Williams

Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bergoglio information

Thomas Williams wrote:

Our streets are parallel , in fact we think like you for all of the problems facing contemporary society , such as you we strive for World Peace and for the respect of the human beings without distinction of any kind and absolute respect towards all religions.

A press release from some Italian lodge looking for publicity by saying nothing but the bleeding obvious. Their path is parallel with the Masonic Vatican II sect? Who would have noticed?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum